State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) assessment of mothers with language delayed children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we evaluated the continuous and state anxiety levels of mothers with children with language delay. METHODS: The study group consisted of the mothers of 18 children with language delay. The control group consisted of the mothers of 29 healthy children without language delay. To gain data about mothers, a personal information form and Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) form were applied to determine continuous and state-trait anxiety levels. RESULTS: State anxiety levels in the study group were significantly higher (by Student t-test) than that of the control group. For continuous anxiety level, no statistically significant difference was determined between two groups. In the study group, higher education levels of mothers and their husbands were associated with lower levels of both continuous and state anxiety. CONCLUSION: In the majority of the group of mothers with language delayed children and even mothers of children with normal language development, there were high levels concern. Mothers' concerns and anxiety levels may decrease with increasing levels of their education levels. We recommend providing detailed information regarding language development to the families at all stages of the childs' training programme.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".